Of course he/they didn't. "Hero." "Want him as my president." but but but what about Joe! Joe needs to release a statement! Joe! Joe! Joe! Joe! Release a statement Joe! Joe! Condemn it Joe! Joe! Joe! Joe! Where's Joe?Joe! Joe! Joe! "The president is not going to weigh in on that."
Neither shocking nor thread-worthy, IMO. He can’t afford to lose his most ardent supporters now. I think when he said the 5th Avenue shooting thing, years ago, he spoke less out of exaggeration and more out of his own dreams.
So people who support this kid I want you to notice something here. Trump is not a man of reservation and pause. He'll blurt out an opinion regardless of context and how offensive it might be. The fact that he feels compelled to actually for once not comment on a incident says a lot due to the break up in the pattern of his behavior. To me this signals that it's pretty damn obvious that a president shouldn't condone a 17 year old ideological vigilante who just shot and killed two people but he also knows that his base has already decided to die on the hill of this 17 year old.
Unfortunate situation where he was trying to help protect businesses- unfortunately he was put in a situation where he had hostile rioters willing to threaten his well being and reluctantly even after being chased by fake miniature stone cold Steve Austin he had no choice but to preserve his own life ... After that he went in the direction of law enforcement and the rioters wanted to rip his head off so he unfortunately had no choice but to preserve his own life this time killing fake Jesus and taking a nice chunk out of a hostiles arm engaging near him a glock after that he did the hands up don’t shoot surrender and the police told him let’s contain the area and we will arrest you later - So yea it’s a travesty but in no way should trump condemn this- also last I checked Biden only fake condemn his rioters kinda sorta due to the incredible shifting polls If Trump wins - it is due to you Democrat’s /Liberals placating to the injustice mob
And by fake condemn you mean Biden unilaterally condemned all violence while the President stokes it.
By fake by people telling him what to say - I don’t think Biden is coherently aware of what shoes he has on much more than current events - there is a lot of measured responses that seem to driven as reactionary when he should have condemned unilaterally many months ago including the situation where the rioters killed the black former law enforcement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...olence-shortly-after-biden-condemns-violence/ On Sunday at 4:13 p.m. Eastern time, Joe Biden issued a broad denunciation of the violence that has occurred at racial justice demonstrations across the country, saying, “I condemn violence of every kind by anyone, whether on the left or the right.” About six hours later, at 10:36 p.m., President Trump asked, “When is Slow Joe Biden going to criticize the Anarchists, Thugs & Agitators in ANTIFA?” It’s not the first time Biden has condemned violence, only to be accused of not condemning violence — often shortly thereafter. Repeatedly now, Trump and his allies have cast Biden as essentially ignoring the violence, even as Biden has weighed in firmly against it on several occasions. Aug. 25: Biden campaign spokeswoman Symone Sanders denounces “burning down communities and needless destruction” in Kenosha, Wis. Aug. 26 at 3:04 p.m.: Biden says in a video and tweet, “Burning down communities is not protest, it’s needless violence — violence that endangers lives, violence that guts businesses, and shutters businesses that serve the community. That’s wrong.” He adds: “We need to end the violence — and peacefully come together to demand justice.” Aug. 26 at 9:10 p.m.: Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) tweets a clip from an appearance on Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s show, alleging, “Joe Biden won’t call out the rioting & looting & burning around the nation b/c he’s in thrall to the Marxist Left.” Biden had clearly called out the violence — citing “burning,” specifically — just a few hours prior. Aug. 27 around 3 p.m.: Democratic vice-presidential nominee Kamala D. Harris says: “We must always defend peaceful protests and peaceful protesters. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter who was arrested for murder [Kyle Rittenhouse]. And make no mistake: We will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice.” Aug. 27 around 11 p.m.: Trump says in his convention speech, “During their convention, Joe Biden and his supporters remained completely silent about the rioters and criminals spreading mayhem in Democrat-run cities.” Trump’s comment notably came the day after Biden’s video and Sanders’s comment. Democrats indeed didn’t say much of anything about the violence at protests at their convention — but that convention came before the police shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wis., reignited the scenes of unrest. Could they have said more about previous scenes of unrest then? Trump is arguing they should have. But to suggest they ignored the topic after three successive days of comments denouncing violence — and to focus on a Democratic convention that came before things deteriorated — is misleading. May 29: Biden tells CNN that people “have a right to be, in fact, angry and frustrated. And more violence, hurting more people, isn’t going to answer the question.” May 31: Biden says: “Protesting such brutality is right and necessary; it’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not. Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not.” June 2: Biden says that “there is no place for violence, no place for looting or destroying property or burning churches, or destroying businesses — many of them built by people of color who for the first time were beginning to realize their dreams and build wealth for their families.” June 20: Trump cites unrest in Seattle in a speech and says that “Biden remains silent in his basement in the face of this brutal assault on our nation and the values of our nation.” George Floyd was killed on May 25. Within the next eight days, Biden condemned the use of violence at least three times. Yet Trump still accused him of remaining “silent” on the topic. July 28: Biden says: “I’ve said from the outset of the recent protests that there is no place for violence or the destruction of property. Peaceful protesters should be protected — but arsonists and anarchists should be prosecuted — and local law enforcement can do that.” Aug. 27: Trump says in his convention speech, “In the face of left-wing anarchy and mayhem in Minneapolis, Chicago, and other cities, Joe Biden’s campaign did not condemn it.” Again, Biden did condemn the violence in the days after Floyd’s killing set off demonstrations and unrest. He also explicitly said that “anarchists” should be prosecuted, contrary to Trump’s claim. The Trump argument seems to be that Biden isn’t condemning the violence in the terms he would prefer — specifically that it should be more focused on left-wing extremists, anarchists and antifa. Republicans have also wrongly claimed Biden called perpetrators of violence “peaceful protesters,” when in fact Biden has simply referred to peaceful protests and said that most demonstrators are, in fact, peaceful. But Biden has repeatedly condemned violence by anyone, and Trump and his allies keep suggesting that he hasn’t at all. In fact, Biden has issued several condemnations — often shortly before Trump and his allies attacked him for not doing so.
Trump might show empathy for Ivanka, but that's about it. It's a short list. Unless you put his own name in the first 9 slots of the top 10, with Ivanka getting a 10th-place ribbon. There is no 11.
So Biden the puppet unilaterally condemned the violence too late for you and by that logic the President of the United States who is a free thinker that has yet to condemn it at all, ever, will be responsible for any violence going forward. Okay. You have to love how sycophants twist themselves into knots explaining the incompetent in chief.
He didn't and won't. He can anger his idiot base of racist wannabe militia members who are too illiterate or cowardly join the military or police forces.
You identify with a 17-year-old marshmallow who killed two people. Who the F are you? Wait: you're white..... male..... straight...... overweight to some degree.... Over 17 but feel like a kid inside? Incel? Married incel?
Y'all keep saying "cities are burning," which is very FOX of you. Cities are huge, and cities are not burning. There are some small towns in California that have literally been burnt by wildfire, if you want to see what that actually looks like. It's horrifying. In the liberal cities of media obsession, a couple of stores, a couple of dumpsters, a couple of cars burned = all awful and nothing I condone. But saying "cities are burning," would be like me saying "hurricane Laura completely decimated Texas and Louisiana." Or, "the Rockets are the worst team in the history of the NBA!" I guess it's good for clicks and getting people riled, but we can do better than that. There are still far more people who've died at the hands of right wing extremists in America than all the riots. And more important than both of those, and much more significant, 180,000 Americans died, just in the last five months, from a virus. 2020 can't end quickly enough.
Joe has shifted. It is time we all denounce the rioting b-bob. He had a press conference today addressing the violence. The "cities are burning" is a figure of speech similar to the "unsurvivable" storm surge that hit lake charles last week. Many survived.
